At the risk of starting another "feud," let me say that I was a huge fan of Ron Moore's revival of Battlestar Galactica (though not of the original, which most of us in the SF community still call Battlestar Ponderosa), but I hated the ending of that series even more than I hated the ending of Lost. Daniel [Martin's occasional collaborator Daniel Abraham] , meanwhile, prefers Babylon 5. He argues that B5 delivered on all the promises it made the viewer, that it paid off in the end with a strong finale and a resolution in keeping with all that went before. Whereas Battlestar Galactica started very strong, then seemed to lose its way.

But I still think Battlestar Galactica (the new one) was a superior achievement. Yes, the ending was terrible (though, as a caveat, I am not sure that there is ANY way to resolve that premise in a way that I'd like, and god knows the way the new show ended was infinitely preferable to what happened with the original Battlestar Ponderosa) ... but those great early episodes don't become any less great because later episodes sucked. The best episodes of BSG are much stronger than any episodes of B5, I would argue. I don't know that Daniel would disagree with that. But he still feels that, if you judge the two series as a whole, not episode by episode, B5 rates higher.

So what do you make of this? Do you agree? Disagree? Which of the two series' finales left YOU the most satisfied?